Juan Betancourt v. U.S. Attorney General ( 2013 )

Case: 12-15298 Date Filed: 05/17/2013 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 12-15298
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A091-986-410
JUAN BETANCOURT,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(May 17, 2013)
Before HULL, JORDAN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 12-15298 Date Filed: 05/17/2013 Page: 2 of 3
Juan Betancourt, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of the Board
of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) final order affirming the Immigration Judge’s
(“IJ”) denial of his application for cancellation of removal, as well as the BIA’s
order denying his motion to reconsider. On appeal, Betancourt argues that the IJ
violated his due process rights by considering and relying on news articles to
conclude that he was a supplier and leader of a drug ring, and, on that basis,
denying his cancellation of removal application as a matter of discretion.
We review de novo our own subject matter jurisdiction. Gonzalez-Oropeza
v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 321 F.3d 1331, 1332 (11th Cir. 2003). When an appellant fails
to offer argument on an issue, that issue is abandoned. Sepulveda v. U.S. Att’y
Gen., 401 F.3d 1226, 1228 n.2 (11th Cir. 2005).
A petition for review must be filed with the court of appeals no later than 30
days after the BIA’s final order of removal. INA § 242(b)(1), 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(1). The statutory time limit for filing a petition for review in an
immigration proceeding is mandatory and jurisdictional and not subject to
equitable tolling. Dakane v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 399 F.3d 1269, 1272 n.3 (11th Cir.
2005). Similarly, a motion to reconsider filed with the BIA does not toll the
review period. Stone v. INS, 514 U.S. 386, 405-06, 115 S.Ct. 1537, 1549, 131
L.Ed.2d 465 (1995).
2
Case: 12-15298 Date Filed: 05/17/2013 Page: 3 of 3
To timely petition for review of the BIA’s July 24, 2012, order dismissing
Betancourt’s appeal, the petition had to be filed within 30 days of that date or by
August 23, 2012. INA § 242(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1). Consequently,
Betancourt’s October 16, 2012, petition for review with this Court is untimely as to
the July 2012 order. INA § 242(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Stone, 514 U.S. at
405-06, 115 S.Ct. at 1549. Accordingly, we dismiss Betancourt’s petition for
review as to the BIA’s July 2012 order for lack of jurisdiction.
Betancourt’s petition is timely as to the BIA’s September 19, 2012, denial of
his motion to reconsider. However, because he failed to offer any argument about
the denial of his motion to reconsider in his initial brief on appeal, he has
abandoned any such argument. See Sepulveda, 401 F.3d at 1228 n.2. Accordingly,
we deny the petition to the extent that it seeks review of the BIA’s denial of
Betancourt’s motion to reconsider.
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.
3